It serms incredible to me to give over a billion dollars to a random person.

  • Usernameblankface@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Ok, but if you had a guarantee that your $10 would go directly to the disenfranchised with no chances of returning millions to you, how would that change things?

    • rebul@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      9 months ago

      Handing money out to the “disenfranchised” solves nothing, thus it never ends. I am for real solutions, like education and a strong family unit. But, you know, having that opinion means I am racist/classist/whatever “ist”.

      • Thaumiel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Love the quote marks around disenfranchised. Real classy.

        Let’s see… cursory glance at post history indicates… Yep, right wing, anti union and against a living wage. That all tracks.

        • Guest_User@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think you are both arguing about an institution giving money to random people right? Just the amount of both money given and number of recipients are changing right?

        • rebul@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          9 months ago

          Quote marks because “disenfranchised” is subjective. And wow, you have mad skills to look at someone’s post history. Aren’t you quite the haxxor?

          I consider myself moderate. Lefty tools such as yourself label anyone that disagrees with them as right wing racist maga nazis. Fuck you.

          I am anti union. Unions served a great purpose 100 years ago. Now they are corrupt shake down organizations that contribute to inflation and drive jobs out of the country. But if someone wants to join one, I don’t care, it’s none of my business. Just don’t use my tax dollars to fund any of it.

          Living wage. There is this idiotic entitlement mentality that people somehow deserve a “living wage” simply for consuming oxygen. Here is the truth: people are paid what they are worth. If you are providing real value to an employer, they will pay you enough to retain you. If they don’t, find another employer. Rinse and repeat.

          But nah, it’s easier to blame shortcomings on billionaires/Trump/“the man”/“disenfranchisement” and hope some politician will send you money for your vote.

          • howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            9 months ago

            It seems to simply be a difference in values. I personally think a human being has value simply for existing, and many others would agree on this. Nothing idiotic about valuing different things.

            • rebul@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              9 months ago

              We are in agreement, humans do have value. My point is that a living wage is possible, but it requires effort and sometimes tough decisions. Everyone should have the opportunity to better their lives, but I disagree that everyone is entitled to a ‘living wage’ simply for being alive. Have you not been to a restaurant where the service was terrible? Do those employees deserve a living wage?

              • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                9 months ago

                Do those employees deserve a living wage?

                No context needed, unequivocally, yes.

                It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. - FDR

              • howrar@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                It seems that where we differ is they yes, I do think that employee providing shitty service deserves a living wage. But more importantly, there’s so much that people do for us that should be paid but isn’t, or that isn’t paid enough to live off of but should be. People who volunteer their time to clean up public spaces, to help take care of the sick and elderly or young children, people producing art for the rest of us to enjoy, people doing doing fundamental research on topics that aren’t currently trendy, and likely many more that aren’t coming to mind right now.

                • rebul@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Their choice to provide shitty service is also a choice to not have a “living wage”.

                  • howrar@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    If it were a deliberate choice, then sure, I’d agree with you. The issue is that it often isn’t, and you don’t know how much choice someone has until you’ve lived their exact life.

              • HerbalGamer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Have you not been to a restaurant where the service was terrible? Do those employees deserve a living wage?

                I’ve been a waiter and can tell you it’s probably because the boss won’t pay for enough people or is trying to cram too many people into their establishment without investing in the required infrastructure and staff.

          • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            If only there were nearly 50 years of data proving your wage theory wrong. Productivity skyrocketed, and workers wages stagnated. Who got paid for all that value that was created? I guess all the people providing labor weren’t providing real-enough value?

            Unions provide the same benefits today as they did 100 years ago. They attempt to level the imbalance between the employer and workers. If there’s a large imbalance then the workers don’t have the leverage to negotiate better wages.